I ask this question because with all that is going on in the world at the moment, it is hard to decipher truth from fiction. I know all news is biased, but which news source do you find most unbiased and trustworthy? This could be traditional sources such as newspapers or more modern, unofficial sources such as internet sites.
What news media do you deem most trustworthy?
- Thread starter Dub
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Flag Pole Pear
Bordering Purgatory
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2001
- Messages
- 794
fox news, obviously.
cbc news is pretty good. ctv isnt bad either.
cbc news is pretty good. ctv isnt bad either.
pax
ONE love, blood, life
I agree CBC and CTV are pretty good sources, as well as the BBC.
This has come up in other threads, but any news agency that is owned by a corporate media giant with vested interests is suspect.
There is one company in particular that has recently been in hot water for pushing their owners agenda on editorial departments of their newspapers and TV stations it owns to the point of firing one of it's publishers because of an editorial that went against the owners personal views. Who can guess who this company may be? (hint, Canadians will have an advantage)
This has come up in other threads, but any news agency that is owned by a corporate media giant with vested interests is suspect.
There is one company in particular that has recently been in hot water for pushing their owners agenda on editorial departments of their newspapers and TV stations it owns to the point of firing one of it's publishers because of an editorial that went against the owners personal views. Who can guess who this company may be? (hint, Canadians will have an advantage)
The Ministry of Truth
"We paid $3 billion for these television stations, we'll decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." - Fox General Manager
This is a subject that is very, very important to everybody. Today's mainstream newsmedia have become much like Orwell's "Ministry of Truth." The fact is, the media bows and cowers like dogs to corporate and governmental pressure all the time, and it is no wonder - seeing that since the 80's Reagan started deregulating the industry leading the way for one corporate buyout or merger after another - the corporate media are increasingly aligned with the very interests that corupt it. Under Bush, it's only getting worse. It is also important to be aware of just how much of our current and past newsmedia personalities, CEO's, owners, and other executives eventually fall into the line of a collective line of philosophy and reasoning shared by the Council on Foreign Relations.
This non-governmental group (though it reads like a who's-who in the world of politics, finance, media, and corporate leadership) screens their members selectively that they all share a collectivist mind-set and philosophy as outlined by their mission-statement. I'll quote from the paper The Grand Deception - Part One: A Second Look at the War on Terror:
"In the Media there are past or present members of the CFR holding key management or control positions - not just working down the line - but in top management and control positions of The Army Times, Associated Press, Association of American Publishers, Boston Globe, Business Week, Christian-Science Monitor, Dallas Morning News, Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, San Diego Union-Tribune, Times Mirror, Random House, W.W. Norton & Co., Warner Books, American Spectator, Atlantic, Harper?s, Farm Journal, Financial World, Insight, Washington Times, Medical Tribune, National Geographic, National Review, New Republic, New Yorker, Newsday, News Max, Newsweek, Reader?s Digest, Rolling Stone, Scientific American, Time-Warner, Time, U.S. News & World Report, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS, RCA, and the Walt Disney Company. Are you beginning to understand why we have a problem with our news and our media?
CFR media personalities include David Brinkley, Tom Brokaw, William Buckley, Peter Jennings, Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Diane Sawyer, and Barbara Walters."
Read what you will into that, but it shows that there is an ominous commonality of mind-set in today's corporate media. Compound this situation with the ever-increasing focus on frivilous topics, while ignoring, downplaying, brow-beating, or blacking-out "inappropriate" ones. Nor do I don't have to remind anyone of the concept of media spin.
I remember a report coming out about 5-8 months ago where an independant media journalist organisation and think-tank rated the media fairness, accuracy, and competency in the U.S. as ranked only #17 in the world. That says a lot. I will post the link if I can dig up the article.
Another ominous and increasingly common situation occuring in the media these days is the rewriting, editing, or downright removal of already published content. I have personally witnessed this no less than 7 times in the last few weeks. How often does this happen? And what are the consequences of this? Any rational analysis would condemn the practice; as it undermines the accuracy and credibility of the publisher. More often than not, these articles, op-eds, or other pieces are of "offending" nature to the status-quo, establishment, or current policy of the government. The following are excellent examples:
1. Donald Rumsfeld, during an interview on CNN, was pretty upset that CNN had footage of him in their archives smiling and shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in the 80's. The time frame of the footage was just after Hussein had used biological weapons against the Iranians, Kurds, and other Iraqi's. The transcript of the interview has since been modified, and the footage has disappeared from CNN.
http://www.mydd.com/archives/000427.html#000427
2. A Times of London article that was thoughtfully critical of Mr. Bush, his policies, and by association Mr. Blair, disappeared from the archives for weeks after publication. All that was left were some letters to the editor referring to the piece. Only after heavy criticism by the people, and the author of the piece, did the Times of London return and acknowledge the article.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-543296,00.html
http://middleeastinfo.org/article.php?sid=1796
3. An op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times by Sandy Tolan, exposing some of the geopolitcal motivations of the War on Iraq, disappeared from their archives as well. A diligent search of the LA Times archives will prove fruitless, however the article has since reappeared as posted elsewhere:
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=5717&TagID=2
These trends are disturbing, but what about blatant illegalities, downright lies, corporate greed, coersion, and violation of FCC regulations?
A recent case involves a lawsuit against Fox, from which the beginning quote to this post refers. A personal review of this case has proven to be one of the most disturbing and enlightening pieces of information on the subject of media I've ever seen. It shows just how much money greed and corruption have infected the mainstream media.
http://www.thepowerhour.com/editorials/reporters-sue-fox-tv.htm
http://www.foxBGHsuit.com/
Media superstar personalities also infect our idiot-boxes. Contracts now range in the multi-millions for such personalities as Connie Chung and Bill O'Reilly. But what kind of unbiased, intelligent, and journalistic integrity should we expect from these people? Bill O'Reilly is a prime example. He now commands the most-watched news talk show, and claims complete unbiasness, as you enter the "No-Spin Zone." However, as can be clearly demonstrated, this is all a bunch of spoon-fed crap. Mr. O'Reilly recently featured a man by the name of Jeremy M. Glick, a signer of the Not In Our Name "Statement of Conscience." His father was killed in the WTC attacks of 9/11. During the interview, Mr. O'Reilly resorted to verbal abuse, over-the-top offhanded dismisals, and other forms of verbal terrorism to complete derail any intent of rational debate. All the while, Mr. Glick remained calm and focused, before O'Reilly simply terminated the interview. It's an old tactic: if you can't attack the argument, then attack the person. But people ate it up. O'Reilly afterwards threatened Mr. Glick with physical assault. I encourage everyone to read the following article, and even listen to the segment yourself.
http://www.freespeech.org/fsitv/html/IM_fox.shtml
http://www.poisonskin.com/oreilyfreakout.mp3
And Connie Chung? You may recall that she disappeared from the media scene for about two years before her now famous return to CNN. Where did she go? What happened? The answer lies in an interview she was doing one night on live TV. When asked how does the news media decide which stories to report on, how they're presented, and to which are given the highest priority, she responded - perhaps a bit too quickly without thinking - very simply "That's easy, we just turn to Washington and ask." The following day she was fired. Now sufficiently punished, and with a new multi-million dollar contract, I'm sure we will hear a different kind of Connie on our TV's Tonight. I will post a link to this story, and the transcript, as soon as I can dig it up.
Media black-out is another fascinating and disturbing trend. How come big media here in the U.S. doesn't report on some encredibly significant and important events. The only references, for example, one can find about the plagerism scandel currently rocking the Blair administration - the infamous British dossier that was used as up-to-the-minute latest intelligence evidence in Powell's UN speech - are a few highly downplayed blurbs on CNN and REUTERS. A few bits and pieces - and a mention or two - but certaintly nothing to debate over. Folks, this is an encredible story, but as it is damning to the Bush administration, it won't receive much attention in the U.S. media.
There is alternative media. Most indie or alternative media outlets are usually offhandedly written off as "too liberal" or "too conservative" or "too biased" or "too niched" or even "flatout wrong". Another problem with alternative media is that it simply doesn't have the financial and political strength to compete with the huge corporate media giants. It's a fact of life, unfortunately, that most Americans get their daily dose of news through soundbytes and carefully crafted 30-second slots on the nightly tube. But there are a lot of excellent media resources to be found, and every news organisation in the United States isn't as corrupted as the big giants. Occasionally, you will even find one of the giants take a stand that is anti-establishment. But this doesn't happen often, and is becoming increasingly rare. In addition you would be highly surprised to learn of some of the connections many alternative media establishments have with elite organizations: CIA, Big Oil, Ford Foundation, the infamous Carlyle group, Alcoa, Xerox, and Coca Cola to name a few. The links and motivations are curious to say the least.
As the New York Times boldly tells us: "All the news that's fit to print."
"We paid $3 billion for these television stations, we'll decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." - Fox General Manager
This is a subject that is very, very important to everybody. Today's mainstream newsmedia have become much like Orwell's "Ministry of Truth." The fact is, the media bows and cowers like dogs to corporate and governmental pressure all the time, and it is no wonder - seeing that since the 80's Reagan started deregulating the industry leading the way for one corporate buyout or merger after another - the corporate media are increasingly aligned with the very interests that corupt it. Under Bush, it's only getting worse. It is also important to be aware of just how much of our current and past newsmedia personalities, CEO's, owners, and other executives eventually fall into the line of a collective line of philosophy and reasoning shared by the Council on Foreign Relations.
This non-governmental group (though it reads like a who's-who in the world of politics, finance, media, and corporate leadership) screens their members selectively that they all share a collectivist mind-set and philosophy as outlined by their mission-statement. I'll quote from the paper The Grand Deception - Part One: A Second Look at the War on Terror:
"In the Media there are past or present members of the CFR holding key management or control positions - not just working down the line - but in top management and control positions of The Army Times, Associated Press, Association of American Publishers, Boston Globe, Business Week, Christian-Science Monitor, Dallas Morning News, Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, San Diego Union-Tribune, Times Mirror, Random House, W.W. Norton & Co., Warner Books, American Spectator, Atlantic, Harper?s, Farm Journal, Financial World, Insight, Washington Times, Medical Tribune, National Geographic, National Review, New Republic, New Yorker, Newsday, News Max, Newsweek, Reader?s Digest, Rolling Stone, Scientific American, Time-Warner, Time, U.S. News & World Report, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS, RCA, and the Walt Disney Company. Are you beginning to understand why we have a problem with our news and our media?
CFR media personalities include David Brinkley, Tom Brokaw, William Buckley, Peter Jennings, Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Diane Sawyer, and Barbara Walters."
Read what you will into that, but it shows that there is an ominous commonality of mind-set in today's corporate media. Compound this situation with the ever-increasing focus on frivilous topics, while ignoring, downplaying, brow-beating, or blacking-out "inappropriate" ones. Nor do I don't have to remind anyone of the concept of media spin.
I remember a report coming out about 5-8 months ago where an independant media journalist organisation and think-tank rated the media fairness, accuracy, and competency in the U.S. as ranked only #17 in the world. That says a lot. I will post the link if I can dig up the article.
Another ominous and increasingly common situation occuring in the media these days is the rewriting, editing, or downright removal of already published content. I have personally witnessed this no less than 7 times in the last few weeks. How often does this happen? And what are the consequences of this? Any rational analysis would condemn the practice; as it undermines the accuracy and credibility of the publisher. More often than not, these articles, op-eds, or other pieces are of "offending" nature to the status-quo, establishment, or current policy of the government. The following are excellent examples:
1. Donald Rumsfeld, during an interview on CNN, was pretty upset that CNN had footage of him in their archives smiling and shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in the 80's. The time frame of the footage was just after Hussein had used biological weapons against the Iranians, Kurds, and other Iraqi's. The transcript of the interview has since been modified, and the footage has disappeared from CNN.
http://www.mydd.com/archives/000427.html#000427
2. A Times of London article that was thoughtfully critical of Mr. Bush, his policies, and by association Mr. Blair, disappeared from the archives for weeks after publication. All that was left were some letters to the editor referring to the piece. Only after heavy criticism by the people, and the author of the piece, did the Times of London return and acknowledge the article.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-543296,00.html
http://middleeastinfo.org/article.php?sid=1796
3. An op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times by Sandy Tolan, exposing some of the geopolitcal motivations of the War on Iraq, disappeared from their archives as well. A diligent search of the LA Times archives will prove fruitless, however the article has since reappeared as posted elsewhere:
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=5717&TagID=2
These trends are disturbing, but what about blatant illegalities, downright lies, corporate greed, coersion, and violation of FCC regulations?
A recent case involves a lawsuit against Fox, from which the beginning quote to this post refers. A personal review of this case has proven to be one of the most disturbing and enlightening pieces of information on the subject of media I've ever seen. It shows just how much money greed and corruption have infected the mainstream media.
http://www.thepowerhour.com/editorials/reporters-sue-fox-tv.htm
http://www.foxBGHsuit.com/
Media superstar personalities also infect our idiot-boxes. Contracts now range in the multi-millions for such personalities as Connie Chung and Bill O'Reilly. But what kind of unbiased, intelligent, and journalistic integrity should we expect from these people? Bill O'Reilly is a prime example. He now commands the most-watched news talk show, and claims complete unbiasness, as you enter the "No-Spin Zone." However, as can be clearly demonstrated, this is all a bunch of spoon-fed crap. Mr. O'Reilly recently featured a man by the name of Jeremy M. Glick, a signer of the Not In Our Name "Statement of Conscience." His father was killed in the WTC attacks of 9/11. During the interview, Mr. O'Reilly resorted to verbal abuse, over-the-top offhanded dismisals, and other forms of verbal terrorism to complete derail any intent of rational debate. All the while, Mr. Glick remained calm and focused, before O'Reilly simply terminated the interview. It's an old tactic: if you can't attack the argument, then attack the person. But people ate it up. O'Reilly afterwards threatened Mr. Glick with physical assault. I encourage everyone to read the following article, and even listen to the segment yourself.
http://www.freespeech.org/fsitv/html/IM_fox.shtml
http://www.poisonskin.com/oreilyfreakout.mp3
And Connie Chung? You may recall that she disappeared from the media scene for about two years before her now famous return to CNN. Where did she go? What happened? The answer lies in an interview she was doing one night on live TV. When asked how does the news media decide which stories to report on, how they're presented, and to which are given the highest priority, she responded - perhaps a bit too quickly without thinking - very simply "That's easy, we just turn to Washington and ask." The following day she was fired. Now sufficiently punished, and with a new multi-million dollar contract, I'm sure we will hear a different kind of Connie on our TV's Tonight. I will post a link to this story, and the transcript, as soon as I can dig it up.
Media black-out is another fascinating and disturbing trend. How come big media here in the U.S. doesn't report on some encredibly significant and important events. The only references, for example, one can find about the plagerism scandel currently rocking the Blair administration - the infamous British dossier that was used as up-to-the-minute latest intelligence evidence in Powell's UN speech - are a few highly downplayed blurbs on CNN and REUTERS. A few bits and pieces - and a mention or two - but certaintly nothing to debate over. Folks, this is an encredible story, but as it is damning to the Bush administration, it won't receive much attention in the U.S. media.
There is alternative media. Most indie or alternative media outlets are usually offhandedly written off as "too liberal" or "too conservative" or "too biased" or "too niched" or even "flatout wrong". Another problem with alternative media is that it simply doesn't have the financial and political strength to compete with the huge corporate media giants. It's a fact of life, unfortunately, that most Americans get their daily dose of news through soundbytes and carefully crafted 30-second slots on the nightly tube. But there are a lot of excellent media resources to be found, and every news organisation in the United States isn't as corrupted as the big giants. Occasionally, you will even find one of the giants take a stand that is anti-establishment. But this doesn't happen often, and is becoming increasingly rare. In addition you would be highly surprised to learn of some of the connections many alternative media establishments have with elite organizations: CIA, Big Oil, Ford Foundation, the infamous Carlyle group, Alcoa, Xerox, and Coca Cola to name a few. The links and motivations are curious to say the least.
As the New York Times boldly tells us: "All the news that's fit to print."
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Drudge Report
Blacksword
Acrobat
You know things have gotten bad when most of the people you know watch CNN just for kicks. I do sometimes too when I want a good laugh.
I honestly hold what the US mainstream media says with a greain of salt. Our CBC may not be perfect but atleast we get s adecent semblance of truth.
I honestly hold what the US mainstream media says with a greain of salt. Our CBC may not be perfect but atleast we get s adecent semblance of truth.
BAW
The Flower
BBC world news
Flag Pole Pear said:
by best friend works for fox news, and as well as meeting many of his co-workers, I have also met many anchors.
even he says that fox news is the biggest pile of shit ever to come in media form. they are they biggest hype-spreading, fear-inticing-coma-inducing station ever.
screw them.
Blacksword
Acrobat
What do you expect it's FOX
bonoman
Refugee
even though cbc gets alot of abuse about being so horrible, the national is one of the best news programs around. I have wacthed all the american channels and bbc but the cbc is one of the best at doing news. Drama and comedy, well thats another story!!
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Blacksword said:
FOX NEWS
We Distort - You comply
Flag Pole Pear
Bordering Purgatory
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2001
- Messages
- 794
JOFO said:
by best friend works for fox news, and as well as meeting many of his co-workers, I have also met many anchors.
even he says that fox news is the biggest pile of shit ever to come in media form. they are they biggest hype-spreading, fear-inticing-coma-inducing station ever.
screw them.
dude, surely you know i was kidding?
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
I don't really trust any of them unconditionally, but I try to watch a variety of news shows and read different newspapers to get a wider perspective on the news. I also regularly read 'alternative news' sites on the internet as they frequently have information that is ignored by the mainstream press.
Olofski
The Fly
SKY and BBC have a great trustworthiness for me, but that?s just maybe because they?re Brittish.
Zoocoustic
War Child
...then your friend should quit and get another job. If I had an employee working for me that thought that way about my company I'd fire him without a second thought.
This is normally the type of B.S. that you hear from the hate-filled minority who is jealous of you when you are NUMBER ONE.
Flag Pole Pear
Bordering Purgatory
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2001
- Messages
- 794
zoocoustic, i sense you'd agree with me that a propaganda branch of the government should be created to inform all americans of the truth straight out of the american governements mouth?
Klaus
Refugee
I guess it's best to read several Newspapers from different countries to make up your mind:
For example: New York Times / "Le Monde" / "Die Zeit"
Watching the world from a different perspective sometimes help to make up your mind about the truth
Klaus
For example: New York Times / "Le Monde" / "Die Zeit"
Watching the world from a different perspective sometimes help to make up your mind about the truth
Klaus
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
My best source of news=Interference.Comdiamond said:Drudge Report
Diamond
Similar threads
